did cousy even have a jumper? all i ever see is that hideous set shot. sometimes two-handed. i appreciate that he brought much to the table, but that set shot of his is just... wrong. dj would be rightfully insulted by some of these comparisons.

That's true in regards to Garnett Nick. But you could argue that without Garnett Boston doesn't beat LA in 2008. And in all likelihood Boston doesn't make the finals in either 2008 or 2010. One of the reasons I put Garnett ahead of Parish in that team I chose.Posted by RUWorthy

Hi RUWorthy,

I was actually going to cite your previous post. There's someone above who also listed the same 5 as me but he was a bit too scared to put Paul at the 2.

The only hangup I have with my 5 is they are kind of big. Would that possibly backfire?

You're correct that no KG means no #17. So I will swing to your thinking and replace McHale with KG. That way the team would still be extra tall, but KG has had the ability to cover shorter opponents.

I'd also be more confident in Parish over McHale to defend the paint. Though we'd be giving up a lot of inside points made on offense, the kind Maxwell, McHale, and uhm Al Jefferson used to provide.

By the way, my favorite Laker was James Worthy. Without you getting him in the draft, I'm not so sure you get those extra titles. We felt with Lenny Bias we were getting a James Worthy the rich get richer caliber addition to the roster. The unfortunate happened, God bless him, and our team got old and injured, and David Stern gave us no relief, unless I'm mistaken.

The next Laker I enjoyed was of course Magic Johnson.

They say opposites attract. I think the beauty of Celtics-Lakers in the 80's was that they were great teams with completely different styles. It was like Frazier versus Ali. It was a toss up. It was pure sports.

I's also like to give some credit to that 76er team with Dr. J, Mo Cheeks, Moses, and Andrew Toney. They were exceptional. I also begrudgingly pay respect to the Detroit Pistons who took over after the Lakers finally hit their down cycle.

As for the Jordan Bull era, I think the league was watered down by that point. David Stern's star system nonsense debilitated the league's mojo. I'm not going to slight Jordan and Pippen too much, but I don't think they win that many titles if any if they had been born ten years earlier. They were like the Larry Holmes of basketball. They were good, but the competition wasn't exactly stellar.

McHale put in many great seasons for the Celtics and was also big in the clutch & getting to the line. KG gave us some great ball in year one and sporadically the rest of the way...mainly due to injuries..

McHale gave us a post game that nobody could handle. One of the few players you had that comfort & confidence in when he got the ball... you knew he'd make something good happen because he just couldnt be guarded.

KG had sick stats when he played for the T Wolves but his game changed for the C's, he plays a support role and can score when need be.

However, the body of work as a "Celtic" clearly goes to McHale imo.. Overall comparing careers its a tough call... KG has the stats but he was numero uno in Minn and they never did much when it counted whereas McHale was numero 2 or 3 or 4 on great Celtic teams and still stood out as one of the greatest players of all time.

Nick and Karl............great posts guys....the Bulls were the "Larry Holmes" of the league...I go with McHale over KG...he gave us tremendous inside scoring along with rebounding and shot blocking...and he gave Rambis and the Lakers something to think about...the Frazier/Ali comparison works for me....(although I was an Ali fan all the way, I guess the Celtics played the part of "Smokin' Joe")

Good points on Mchale guys. After looking up the numbers I saw he grabbed more boards than I originally thought. Can't argue against Mchale over KG.

My thing with KG is a curiosity of how he and Bird would have complimented each other on the intensity level, and more so, how Bird would have affected KG's game. How he might have brought out something in his game that maybe we havn't seen. I know Mchale tried to help him develop post moves for years, and he was the best, but Bird didn't make suggestions. It's probably moot by 2008 either way.

Some have said Pierce at the 2. If we're going to take it out of position a bit and look at the best 2/3 hybrid which could handle the 2 better. i think there's an argument for Reggie Lewis over Pierce in that role. Reggie could run better and I see him staying with his man on the defensive end better than Pierce for 4 quarters at the 2. It's hard to leave Pierce out of this group but he doesn't take the 3 over Bird and he might be a liability in some areas at the 2. This article below is about how Reggie Lewis exposed Reggie Miller at the 2 in the '92 post season. Brought back some good memories.

I think this conversation would make more sense, if we were allowed 10 or even 12 roster slots. It's said styles make the fight in regards to the Sweet Science. It's really not that different with basketball. Doc showed what he could do in 2008 with 8 very good rotation players. Five is too limiting and makes the team vulnerable.

KG clearly only gets consideration based on 2008. No way has his other 3 years as a Celtic been too noteworthy. He gave us one great win over Miami. Nonetheless, his 2008 speed and defensive desire would be very useful to any team going for rings.

Too much Bird and McHale might allow certain fast teams to pile up points. Of course, when the 80's team was in sync, and they were quite often, they were truly a Green Machine of their own on offense and pretty much unstoppable. 40-1 at home. Wow.

So if we were allowed to come up with a malleable 10-12 man roster, McHale and KG would be the power forwards. Maxwell was also great and won a playoff MVP. However, McHale could score inside points even better than Max. KG was a better defender. The same scenario can be applied to center. Just take from the 1986 team, Parish and Walton. Or even Perk, if Parish can give you close to 35-40 strong minutes. With the firepower and passing ability of previous Celtics, Perk would have been even better than he was in 2008.

Paul could definitely handle the 2 earlier in his career. But based on how he developed his defensive game, I'll switch to having him as my backup to Larry Bird.

Passfirst has convinced me to have Reggie Lewis as the backup hybrid, and I'll relent on Ray and put him in as the starter for sg. At the point, DJ starts with Rondo off the bench or vice versa.

Then for coach, I'd have KC. Fitch might have been the better strategist, I don't know, but I don't think blowhard coaches work for too long in any sport. Jim O'Brien would be an ok choice for later years when the teams went to slower defensive styles. Other than them, I don't think we have had too many good coaches. I think Chris Ford and Pitino were downright awful. I guess Doc could be considered. Unfortunately, Rivers has shown too often to either use too much of a roster or not enough. He would be exceptional at handling all those egos, no question about that.

Good post, agree with much. Only I cant take KG over McHale... McHale put in many great seasons for the Celtics and was also big in the clutch & getting to the line. KG gave us some great ball in year one and sporadically the rest of the way...mainly due to injuries.. McHale gave us a post game that nobody could handle. One of the few players you had that comfort & confidence in when he got the ball... you knew he'd make something good happen because he just couldnt be guarded. KG had sick stats when he played for the T Wolves but his game changed for the C's, he plays a support role and can score when need be. However, the body of work as a "Celtic" clearly goes to McHale imo.. Overall comparing careers its a tough call... KG has the stats but he was numero uno in Minn and they never did much when it counted whereas McHale was numero 2 or 3 or 4 on great Celtic teams and still stood out as one of the greatest players of all time.Posted by Karllost

I still took them both.

McHale to Centre. I just think he'd offer more to the team than Robert Parish. McHale was among the very best in the NBA in 86/87. Parish never had that sort of season. McHale also picked up multiple (3) All Defensive First Team spots. I really don't think he'd have trouble playing centre.

KG during his time in Boston has also earned 3 Defensive First Team awards. And I don't think this can be underestimated. His worth to the team in this stage of his career is beyond points. It's presence. First year in Boston he was named to the All NBA first team. It's also open to debate if he'd have achieved that honor again baring injury in 08/09.

KG is the Boston Celtics during this period.

McHale and KG both play team ball. KG especially during his time in Boston. Both of them would sacrifce their game if needed for the side to be successful.

That's the compliment I'd give to Parish. Who's time in Boston seemed to be about sacrifice. He didn't make any NBA First teams or all Defensive Teams. But he was perfect for that Celtics team. I just feel that McHale can do all the things Parish did. But offer more on the defensive end.

Although I'll put it this way. If I was selecting a team of players for Boston since 1982 I'd probably start Parish and have McHale as sixth man. KG would be there to start.

McHale at center was better than 99% of starting centers. But he was physically overmatched against guys like Moses Malone and Jabbar.

NBA TV broadcast game 4 of the 1984 finals a couple of nights ago (the infamous McHale clothesline of Rambis that helped turn the series to Boston). Parish got into foul trouble and McHale had to guard Jabbar for long stretches of the second half. Jabbar ate him alive.

In Response to Re: best 5 celtics as from 1982 : CelticsFanatic Cousy in the modern era would be one heck of a stretch. A stationary chair would be more successful on defense than Cuz against the speedy guards of the present era. As to offense-- How about this comparison of their comparative shooting skills. Below shooting percentages are for 2 point shooting. Cousy.- lifetime FG% = .375 with him shooting under .400 % in 12 of his 13 years in the league. Nash,- lifetime FG% = .516 with him shooting under .500 2 times( .495 in 2001- 02 and .476 in 2002-03) in his 14 year career. Stockton,-lifetime FG% =.539 and he never shot under .500 in his career. Note-- Above figures are based on a minimum of 60 games per year and a minimum of 24 minutes per game and have been adjusted to 2 point shooting for both Nash and Stockton. Seems Posted by SeemsToMe

Seems, I am just asking you a question and not trying to start an argument. In your opinion who is a better athlete Jerry West in his prime or Steve Nash in his prime?

In Response to Re: best 5 celtics as from 1982 : Seems, I am just asking you a question and not trying to start an argument. In your opinion who is a better athlete Jerry West in his prime or Steve Nash in his prime? Posted by calvinator

calvinator,

Sorry for the delay, but I just caught up with your post. This would call for an opinion on my part and I always try to back up my opinions with statistical data. In this case I have no data that clearly points to one player over the other. Both are outstanding offensive players with West having been voted onto the league deffensive team 5 times. On the otherhand Nash has been going head to head against many great Black players during his 15 year career and he's still around. And whats your opinion? After all, your opinion is as good as anyones.

In Response to Re: best 5 celtics as from 1982 : calvinator, Sorry for the delay, but I just caught up with your post. This would call for an opinion on my part and I always try to back up my opinions with statistical data. In this case I have no data that clearly points to one player over the other. Both are outstanding offensive players with West having been voted onto the league deffensive team 5 times. On the otherhand Nash has been going head to head against many great Black players during his 15 year career and he's still around. And whats your opinion? After all, your opinion is as good as anyones. seems Posted by SeemsToMe

I saw Jerry West play when I was quite young and not able to make a critical judgement. I can only go off the old films. The reason I used the comparison was because Cousy actually played when West was playing. You most likely saw them play against each other either on TV or in person. If West would be the more athletic one then maybe Cousy would not of been so bad in the current era. I must admit though his shooting style was just so old fashioned. And you do make a good point about their being more black players in the modern era.

you have to remember......guys back in the day weren't born with great athletic skills....they had to develop them. Cousy was not born a great ball handler and passing wizard...maybe there were some inborn eye hand co-ordination skills...but he developed all of his state of the art moves....as for shooting....remember that the field goal percentages of the time were so much lower than a few decades later...the guys worked on their scoring more than their shooting....

Elgin Baylor had a career .431 FGP....Jerry West came in at .474....these guys weren't padding their averages with a lot of dunks (although Baylor did throw some huge dunks down back in the day).....

if Cous could develop the tremendous passing and ball handling skills he had....I'm sure that, if he played today, he would be able to learn how to become a marksman....just my opinion...

In Response to Re: best 5 celtics as from 1982 : I saw Jerry West play when I was quite young and not able to make a critical judgement. I can only go off the old films. The reason I used the comparison was because Cousy actually played when West was playing. You most likely saw them play against each other either on TV or in person. If West would be the more athletic one then maybe Cousy would not of been so bad in the current era. I must admit though his shooting style was just so old fashioned. And you do make a good point about their being more black players in the modern era.Posted by calvinator

calvinator I first started following Cousy in 1948 when he was at Holy Cross College in Worcester. When he joined the Celts in 1950 he soon became my favorite player. In 1956-57 Russell joined him as my co-favorites. But I have to tell you this. The level of play back in those days was absolutely terrible when compared to the modern game For me the modern game starts in the late 70's(thats when Blacks with their speed, quickness, and agility took over the game. When you add the vastly superior shooting and ballhandling skills possessed by the modern players I have trouble visualizing most of those old timers making the grade in the modern nba. Your right about Cousy's and West's career overlapping for 3 years. And its also a fact that Cousy did quite well during those 3 years putting his many years of nba experience to good use. For the most part year to year differences are not that noticeable. But its now been 48 years since "the Cuz" took off the Celtic green for the last time-and boy has the game changed. Whether Cousy could cut it now, matters not the least to me. He cut it back in the 50's and 60's and thats what made me a very happy camper during all those championship years. Now if we can just get this labor dispute settled I can sit back and enjoy season number 62.

Checkout the above link. The chart is for the Cousy years and shows the number of years that a player shot under 400%. As you can see the shooting left alot to be desired. Players numbered 4,6,8,11,12,13,18,19,21,24,26,31,33,34 were all guards that Cousy met many times over the years. Of special note is the fact that in addition to Cousy, players with the asterisk next to their name, are fellow HALL OF FAMERS. Also I only referred to those players that had 3 or more years of sub 400% shooting. Seems

In Response to Re: best 5 celtics as from 1982 : calvinator I first started following Cousy in 1948 when he was at Holy Cross College in Worcester. When he joined the Celts in 1950 he soon became my favorite player. In 1956-57 Russell joined him as my co-favorites. But I have to tell you this. The level of play back in those days was absolutely terrible when compared to the modern game For me the modern game starts in the late 70's(thats when Blacks with their speed, quickness, and agility took over the game. When you add the vastly superior shooting and ballhandling skills possessed by the modern players I have trouble visualizing most of those old timers making the grade in the modern nba. Your right about Cousy's and West's career overlapping for 3 years. And its also a fact that Cousy did quite well during those 3 years putting his many years of nba experience to good use. For the most part year to year differences are not that noticeable. But its now been 48 years since "the Cuz" took off the Celtic green for the last time-and boy has the game changed. Whether Cousy could cut it now, matters not the least to me. He cut it back in the 50's and 60's and thats what made me a very happy camper during all those championship years. Now if we can just get this labor dispute settled I can sit back and enjoy season number 62. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/calhobi01.html Checkout the above link. As you can see the shooting left alot to be desired. Players numbered 4,6,8,11,12,13,18,19,21,24,26,31,33,34 were all guards that Cousy met many times over the years. Of special note is the fact that in addition to Cousy, players with the asterisk next to their name, are fellow HALL OF FAMERS. Also I only referred to those players that had 3 or more years of sub 400% shooting. Seems Posted by SeemsToMe

Seems......ok, to me, the modern NBA started with the shot clock......that said, you are correct that as years (decades) went by the game was being dominated predominantly by blacks.....of course there were many great white players such as Jerry West, John Havlicek, Rick Barry, Bill Bradley, etc in that league at that time....

I'd go back at least ten years.....1966/67, when the Sixers posted one of the greatest seasons in league history....look at that team....four of the five starters were black (Chamberlain, Jackson, Walker, and Greer)...and Wali Jones was off the bench right behind Cunningham...

The Warriors were their opponents.....interestingly enough, the only black star was Thurmond...

Finally the Bulls were somewhat like the Warriors.....they only had Rogers and Boozer

My point is that the league had many black stars way before the late '70's and remember, the league was only a few years away from Alcinder and Hayes...

I'm probably forgetting some stars (where was Gus Johnson that year...?) ....and, of course, there were other lesser known blacks in the league...but my point is that the league had as many black stars as whites by the late '60's

Seems......ok, to me, the modern NBA started with the shot clock......that said, you are correct that as years (decades) went by the game was being dominated predominantly by blacks.....of course there were many great white players such as Jerry West, John Havlicek, Rick Barry, Bill Bradley, etc in that league at that time.... I'd go back at least ten years.....1966/67, when the Sixers posted one of the greatest seasons in league history....look at that team....four of the five starters were black (Chamberlain, Jackson, Walker, and Greer)...and Wali Jones was off the bench right behind Cunningham... The Warriors were their opponents.....interestingly enough, the only black star was Thurmond... Boston had Russ, Sam, KC, Satch, and big Wayne Embry who was Russell's backup The Hawks had Beaty, Bridges, Caldwell, Hudson, Silas, and Wilkins The Knicks had Reed, Bellamy, Barnett, and Stallworth The Lakers had Baylor, Hawkins, Chambers, and Clark The Royals had Oscar, Hairston, and Love Finally the Bulls were somewhat like the Warriors.....they only had Rogers and Boozer My point is that the league had many black stars way before the late '70's and remember, the league was only a few years away from Alcinder and Hayes... I'm probably forgetting some stars (where was Gus Johnson that year...?) ....and, of course, there were other lesser known blacks in the league...but my point is that the league had as many black stars as whites by the late '60's anyway, as you said......this is just an opinion buddy...Posted by Duke4

"I'm probably forgetting some stars (where was Gus Johnson that year...?) ....and, of course, there were other lesser known blacks in the league...but my point is that the league had as many black stars as whites by the late '60's" Gus Johnson was with Baltimore and you missed Dave Bing with detroit. Also, your right about Blacks being equal to whites in the late 60's but note Duke that I used the words " Blacks with their speed,quickness and agility took over the game". Here are some numbers to illustrate my contention.

Starting with Russell's 1st year in the league(1956-57) to the present I will list the percentage of Whites vs Blacks that are under 6'8" tall and rank in the top 5 scorers in points per team. Used under 6'8" as representative of the speed players. For example: 1956-57- 8 teams in the league x 5 players = 40 players.Of those 40 players 29 were 6'7" or shorter of which 25 were white= 86%. 57-58: 40 players,90% white 58-59: 40 players,82% white 59-60: 40 players,75% white 60-61: 40 players,71 % white 61-62: 9 teams= 45 players, 71% white 62-63: 45 players,59% white. Then it pretty much leveled off over the next 6 years. 63-64, 48% 64-65, 55% 65-66, 50% 66-67, 50% 67-68, 48% 68-69, 45% .

With the end of segregation in the college ranks in the deep south in 1974 a black surge into the pro ranks took place and this coupled with the folding of the ABA saw the white percentage rate drop to 16% in 1979-80. Blacks from the deep south continued to flow into the nba dropping the white percentage down to 11% 1n 1986-87. The under 6'8" white player is dam near extinct now and as of 2009-10 out of the top 150 scorers in the league(30 teams x 5 players) of the 74 which were under 6'8", only 3 are white americans. Thats a lowly 4%. Thats a 86% drop from the 57-58 season. Speed is the name of the game now and its dominance started in the late 70's. Add the remarkable ball handling skills of the modern player to the speed of the black athlete and you have a dynamic combination.

Thanks for the responce Seems. This board is starting to get good again. Too bad we have no season to talk about!! If it were not for the Patriots I would be lost.Posted by calvinator

calvinator,

I always enjoy a good sports conversation. I spend several hours a day doing research on basketball, primarily about the 50's and 60's in comparison to the 80's on to the present. Its just a hobby, but it helps to keep me from going "brain Dead") at soon to be 80 years of age. Any thoughts or questions on your mind,post them to me. Its always fun time for me to keep involved.

Well, it surely keeps you from growing old Seems.....I do a lot of the same thing....I love sports history....not only what I've seen....but all the years before as well....of course, I just turned 61....so I must seem like a kid to you....!!

Seems.....one thing about this discussion....you agreed that the black/white stars were pretty much evened out by the late '60's.....but you refer to the blacks with their speed, quickness, and agility as the ones taking over the league by the late '70's....this seems like sort of a blanket statement.....I mean....weren't guys like Baylor and Robertson tremendous athletes who came into the league in the late '50's and early '60's....? .....didn't guys like Elvin Hayes and Lew Alcindor have incredible athletic skills..? ....they were in the league in the late '60's..... one of the greatest who was the epitome of that era was Magic Johnson....he was a great basketball player....but as far as speed and athleticism....he was on par with Larry Bird, not Hayes or Alcindor.....I really think you are short changing some great black athletes who played at least ten years earlier....not to mention Russ and Wilt, who played twenty years earlier...again, just my opinion...but since 1960 or so...I saw them all as well....we aren't talking about the game prior to the shot clock era....again...just my opinion buddy.....

Seems....as a follow up to my last post.....the NBA's list of the greatest 50 Players was voted on in 1996.........almost twenty years after the "late '70's and beyond era".......I found it interesting to note that 30 blacks were named....17 players who played in the earlier era....13 who fit your criterion...

if you were to consider the '77 season to be year 1 of the new era.....then the vote was taken 20 years later in '96.......going backward from '77 as year 1....the list goes back to '58....every single player on this list played in that time frame....of course there have been many more great blacks that have played in the league during the 15 years since the voters made up the list...(along with some great white stars).....but still.....the voters thought that there were more "great black players" before your "new era" began....again pal....just my opinion....but also the opinion of the voters who voted on that list....